Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Sixth Amendment (3)
- Prosecutors (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
-
- Death penalty (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Double jeopardy (1)
- Due process (1)
- Effective assistance of counsel (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Empirical studies (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Federal Rules of Criminatl Procedure (1)
- Federal agencies (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Grand juries (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Incompetence (1)
- Juries (1)
- Peremptory challenges (1)
- Prosecutorial discretion (1)
- Secrecy (1)
- State courts (1)
- Stone v. Powell (1)
- United States v. Goodwin (1)
- Voir dire (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices In Capital Cases: An Empirical Study And A Constitutional Analysis, Bruce J. Winick
Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices In Capital Cases: An Empirical Study And A Constitutional Analysis, Bruce J. Winick
Michigan Law Review
As presently construed, the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty. The states and the federal government may punish the commission of certain crimes with death, so long as the extreme penalty is not imposed on a mandatory basis and so long as the procedures used in imposing a death sentence meet constitutional scrutiny.
A demonstration that the prosecutor used the peremptory challenge in the manner described in a single case probably would be insufficient to support a constitutional challenge in the federal courts and in the vast majority of state courts. In these courts a prosecutor's use of the …
Prosecutorial Vindictiveness In The Criminal Appellate Process: Due Process Protection After United States V. Goodwin, Michigan Law Review
Prosecutorial Vindictiveness In The Criminal Appellate Process: Due Process Protection After United States V. Goodwin, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note reformulates the doctrine of prosecutorial vindictiveness in light of the distinction drawn in Goodwin between pretrial and posttrial charging decisions. Part I recounts the development of the vindictiveness concept, and argues that in extending the doctrine beyond the factual settings which moved the Supreme Court to fashion its original prophylactic rule, the circuit courts have seriously eroded an essential due process safeguard. Part II critically examines the distinction between pretrial and posttrial charging decisions relied upon in Goodwin. Developing the logical corollary of the Goodwin holding, this Part argues that just as the pretrial situation does not …
Federal Agency Access To Grand Jury Transcripts Under Rule 6 (E), Michigan Law Review
Federal Agency Access To Grand Jury Transcripts Under Rule 6 (E), Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Part I examines the courts' current certainty-based perspective, and rejects this approach because it sacrifices important interests in civil law enforcement and judicial consistency for speculative and coincidental reductions in grand jury abuse. Part II defends the proposed standard by arguing that it comports with the language and intent of the rule while more effectively advancing the policy interests in civil law enforcement and grand jury secrecy.
Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review
Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Part I briefly identifies the considerations underlying the Stone Court's decision to limit habeas corpus review of fourth amendment claims. Part II then argues against applying Stone to the sixth amendment claim. After establishing the analytic difference between the two constitutional claims and examining Stone's "opportunity for full and fair litigation" standard, it concludes that Stone is fully consistent with free review of habeas corpus petitions alleging incompetent handling of fourth amendment questions. Finally, responding to a popular interpretation of Stone, Part II demonstrates that the possibility that ineffectiveness claims may not further the determination of a defendant's …
Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review
Double Jeopardy And Federal Prosecution After State Jury Acquittal, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that the rationale of the Supreme Court's post-conviction cases cannot be extended to cases involving jury acquittal and that federal reprosecution after state jury acquittal violates the double jeopardy clause. One can give meaning to the clause, Part Iexplains, only by reference to its underlying constitutional values.Part II suggests that these values, while possibly compatible with federal prosecution after a state conviction, cannot countenance reprosecution after a jury acquittal. Part III proposes that courts determine whether such reprosecution is appropriate by applying the Blockhurger same offense standard: Two offenses are the same unless each requires proof of …